DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report

This is a good example of how allowing a small infringement on American's rights becomes a huge violation of many American's rights.  Police agencies and Prosecutors will try to use new tools to their best ability to make their job easier.

DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:

I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15.  It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.  However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division.  Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.

I believe there are many other situations like this.  The process does seem effective.  However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight.  I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes.  If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.

DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report

This is a good example of how allowing a small infringement on American's rights becomes a huge violation of many American's rights.  Police agencies and Prosecutors will try to use new tools to their best ability to make their job easier.

DEA Special Operations Division Covers Up Surveillance Used To Investigate Americans: Report:

I've complained many times to our elected officials (annual letters to Congressman, for example) about the "immigration checkpoints" along Interstate 5 and 15.  It is pretty clear that those checkpoints are virtually useless when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.  However, I think the Government keeps on operating them so they can use them to stop vehicles that have been "tipped off" by organizations such as the DEA Special Operations Division.  Then the actual tip can be covered up by making the defendants and their lawyers think that the catch was just a "random" stop at the immigration checkpoint.

I believe there are many other situations like this.  The process does seem effective.  However it needs some sort of impartial and accountable oversight.  I don't like the idea of a secret court made of of secret judges with secret minutes.  If such a court is in operation, it should be forced to make all of its decisions and findings public within a reasonable amount of time -- 3 to 5 years.

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border | Threat Level | Wired.com

Here is another example of where our police have gone too far.  It isn't clear to me what our leaders are thinking.

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border | Threat Level | Wired.com:

Last year I wrote to our Congressman about a similar situation, and asked him to sponsor legislation that would establish a "Digital Bill of Rights"
See below:
Sent to Darrel Issa in Apr 2012

PC World editor, Mark Sullivan has written several editorials in PC World.  He has also posted a video: http://www.pcworld.com/article/250251/a_digital_consumer_bill_of_rights.html

His editorial in February 2012 hit the nail on the head!  However is editorial in the “Consumer Watch” section of the May 2012 issue focused down on the critical issues:
1. We have the right to know what any internet company plans to do with our data
2. The data we store or post “in the cloud” is our property. The internet company does not gain rights to it by posting it on their web site
3. We have the right to expect reasonable protection of our data
4. If the Government wants to monitor our digital transmissions, they should get a search warrant first

Prior to computers, when a person was suspected of committing a crime, law enforcement could obtain a search warrant.  With that warrant, usually police would grab the suspects files and notebooks, bank records, photos etc.  After everyone started getting computers, the police would focus on hard drives of the suspect’s computers.  Generally that contained most of the critical evidence, since data was moving from paper to computers.  Now everything is moving to the “cloud” or smartphone.  Because of this, we now need the same protections for our digital data that we have always had for our other personal property and information.  I believe the intent of our Bill of Rights was to protect this information.  

Law and order: Q&A with U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy Page 1 of 3 | UTSanDiego.com

The Union Tribune has continually praised Laura Duffy for her tactics against Marijuana Dispensaries.  Here's another example.
Law and order: Q&A with U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy Page 1 of 3 | UTSanDiego.com:

The bottom line is that she has a choice: Go after serious criminals, or go after the easy dispensaries that get her lots of press.  She takes the easy route, and the Union Tribune praises it!

The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone - Derek Khanna - The Atlantic

The digital millennium copyright act was a disaster to American's freedom.  This is just one more example.
The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone - Derek Khanna - The Atlantic:

Aaron Swartz and Motel Caswell: Book ends to prosecutorial reform? - CSMonitor.com

I've followed this Motel Caswell case for quite a while, and have always thought that it was a huge stretch for a prosecutor to think they could take a hotel, if a guest at a hotel was busted for drugs.

Aaron Swartz and Motel Caswell: Book ends to prosecutorial reform? - CSMonitor.com:

Jury Nulification --our duty?

When a jury finds a defendant not guilty, not because they don't believe the defendant committed the act, but because the jury thought the law, itself, was not valid, it is called Jury Nullification.  The impression I always had was that when a Jury did that it was somewhat "illegal."

However, I received an e-mail today that had these quotes from founding fathers:

Quotations and Comments on Fully Informed Juries

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only .. (the juror's) right, but his duty ..to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”